Ranveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan

M.C. Sharma, J.—S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 11129/2011, 11865/2011 and 11864 have been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. by the accused petitioners Ranveer Singh, Suraj Kumar and Pappu Lal Saini whereas S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 283 of 2012 has been filed by the accused Gurmit Singh under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 345/2011 registered at Police Station Sodala District Jaipur for offence under Secs. 453 and 380 IPC. Since all these four bail applications related to FIR No. 345/2011, registered at Police Station Sodala Jaipur City South against the accused petitioners, they are being disposed by this common order.

Brief facts in short are that Ravi Singh Achrol who is complainant has submitted a written report stating that he is the only owner of the property in question situated at Plot No. 6 Achrol Estate, Civil Lines, and he lives in America for the last 31 years. In his house he kept antique paintings, old domestic furnitures and articles, old paintings and whenever he came to India he lives in his house. When he came to India this time he came to know that the lock of his house was broken and some Gunda people has occupied the said plot and they told that the aforesaid plot has been taken by Ranveer Singh Guda and Ranveer Singh has asked them to reside in the house. They were having guns and revolvers in their hands. He further stated that he has not sold the aforesaid property to any one nor he has entered into any agreement with anybody and the Gunda people who are available inside his house were not permitting him to enter in the house and they threatened to the complainant that within seven days if the Registry of this house is not done in the name of Ranveer Singh his hands and legs will be cut. Upon the said complaint the police Registered FIR No. 345 of 2011 at Police Station Sodala. Pappu lal Saini filed application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, the same was rejected on 29.10.2011. Bail application of accused petitioner Ranveer Singh was filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5 was rejected on 16.11.2011. The bail application of accused Suraj Kumar under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan vide order dated 14.11.2011. The bail application of accused petitioner Gurmit Singh under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by Special Judge, SC/ST Atrocities Cases Jaipur City Jaipur vide order dt. 3.12.2011. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur while rejecting the bail application of Pappu Lal Saini observed as under:

While rejecting the bail application filed by the accused Ranveer Singh before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan in its order dated 16.11.2011 it was further observed as under:

While deciding the bail application of accused petitioner Suraj Kumar vide order dated 14.11.2011 the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 further observed as under:

While rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner Gurmit Singh u/s 438 Cr.P.C., the Special Judge SC/ST Atrocities Cases vide order dated 3.12.2011 observed as under:

Thereafter the petitioners have moved the above applications before this court. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Ranveer Singh and Suraj Kumar has contended that the accused petitioners are in judicial lock up since long and the alleged offence against the accused petitioners is triable by the First Class Magistrate. The challan has been filed and the charge is yet to be framed. He has further contended that there is no allegation specifically against the petitioners about the commission of offence by them. He has further contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case it is purely a civil dispute. He has further contended that Ravi Singh executed a power of attorney in favour of Smt. Anjila, who made an agreement to sale with Gurmit Singh in the sum of Rs. 5 crores and 51 lacs and she took Rs. 21 lacs in advance on record. According to him the possession was also given for doing repairs work. He has further contended that the allegation made against the accused petitioners is completely baseless. According to him at the time of entering into agreement rate of land was low later on it became high. That is why all this problem have been created, hence the accused petitioners should be released on bail. On behalf of the accused petitioner Pappu Lal Saini, Ms. Nisha Sharma raised the similar arguments for releasing the accused petitioner Pappu Lal Saini on bail. Mr. V.S. Badhwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Gurmit Singh has argued that the petitioner entered into agreement and paid Rs. 21,000,00/- in advance and executing of agreement has been accepted by the prosecution and nothing is to be recovered from him and he be granted anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners Ranveer Singh and Suraj Kumar placed reliance on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and anr. Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012 arising out of S.LP (Cr.) No. 10244 of 2010 decided on January 16, 2012 by the Apex Court. In para No. 6 the Apex Court observed as under:

It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the court etc.

On the other hand Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. Peeyush Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutors, have contended that it is not a case of civil nature but it is completely a case of criminal nature, wherein property worth of crores of rupees has been grabbed by the petitioners by broking open the locks of the house. They have further contended that all the accused petitioners are habitual offenders. Upon the statement made by Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma, Advocate, this court on the last occasion asked the investigating officer to file an affidavit regarding the pendency of the criminal cases against the accused petitioners. The investigating officer has today filed the affidavit regarding pendency of the cases against the accused petitioners, which has been placed on the record of this case. According to the affidavit filed by the investigating officer against accused petitioner Ranveer Singh there were 32 cases registered against him out of which 21 cases are still pending. Against accused petitioner Suraj Kumar six cases were pending. Out of which, in one case he has been acquitted and five cases are pending against him. Against accused Pappu Lal Saini there were six cases, out of which in one case compromise was done and in two cases fine was imposed upon him and still three cases are pending against him. Against accused Gurmit only one case is pending. From the report of Police Station Ramgarh District Alwar no case is pending in that Police Station. From the report received from the Police Station Ramgarh it has been specifically stated that the position of Gurmit Singh is not so economically sound to do a deal of Rs. 5 crore and 51 lacs. Sum and substance is that he is not so economically sound to get such a high deal done. The learned counsel for the complainant and the Public Prosecutors appearing for the State have contended that the accused petitioners formed a criminal gang for taking land forcibly and grabing land in the State of Rajasthan specifically in Jaipur City and such types of criminal activities should not be allowed to be done in the State of Rajasthan and hence the accused petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. For accused petitioner Gurmit it was argued that investigation against him is pending and recovery is to be made from him, and hence he is not entitled to be given the benefit of anticipatory bail in such a heinous offence of grabing house in Civil Lines area. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record made available to me. Without expressing any opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, which will either way prejudice the case of either parties, I do not think it proper to accept the bail applications of the accused petitioners Ranveer Singh, Suraj Kumar and Pappu Lal Saini, at this stage but at the same time when the challan has already been filed against them and there are only 9 prosecution witnesses on behalf of the prosecution to be called in the case, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial of the accused petitioners Ranveer Singh, Suraj Kumar and Pappu Lal Saini and other co-accused who have been facing trial along with these petitioners within a period of six months from the receipt of certified copy of the order of this court. The trial court is further directed to record the statements of the material witnesses of the prosecution within a period of three months and thereafter the petitioners Ranveer Singh, Suraj Kumar and Pappu Lal Saini shall be at liberty to move bail application before the trial court and the trial court shall decide their bail applications if filed, in accordance with law. In this manner indicated hereinabove, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months if possible. Looking to the facts of the case and particularly the pendency of investigation and recovery of the agreement from the accused petitioner Gurmit Singh, his bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.